Jealousy in Sexual and Emotional Infidelity: An Alternative to the Evolutionary Explanation.

Evolutionary psychology is the predominant framework within which differences between the sexes in the elicitation of jealousy have been studied. As is true for a number of other behavioral (Buss, 1995a; Tooby & Cosmides, 1992) and psychological (Buss, 1995b; Buss & Kenrick, 1998) differences between men and women, such as expressions of violence, competition, and risk taking, jealousy is said to reflect adaptations to the distinct pressures that men and women faced in their evolutionary past. The era from which many of the proposed adaptations are believed to have derived is the Pleistocene era, a period when homo sapiens are generally assumed to have been organized in hunter-gatherer groups. To the extent that such an organization presented unique demands on the sexes, it is hypothesized that men and women developed somewhat different strategies for their survival.

Consistent with evolutionary theory, proponents of evolutionary psychology have focused their efforts on explaining sexual selection and the extent to which men and women engage in short-term and long-term mating behaviors. Differences in parental investment represent the foundation for the mating strategies to which the sexes have adapted. Because women are more biologically bound to the reproduction of their off spring they are said to be more adapted to long-term mating strategies, while men, the less investing sex, are said to be more adapted to short-term mating behaviors (Buss, 1996; Kenrick, Trost, & Sheets, 1996). That is, men who were less discriminating in choosing a mating partner and more promiscuous were believed to be more successful in passing on their genes than were those who were more discriminating and less promiscuous. For women, on the other hand, sexual selection theory suggests that those who were most concerned with securing a single mate fit to take care of a family were more likely to be reproductively successful.

Evolutionary psychologists have suggested yet another conflict of interest, which together with the sexual conflict in mating strategies resulted in sexual differences in the elicitation of jealousy. This second conflict results from internal fertilization (Trivers, 1972). Upon learning of her impregnation, a woman may be assured that she has been successful in propagating her genetic material. Her male partner's assurance, however, is never so certain, since the moment of fertilization cannot be directly known by him. Men presumably adapted to their situation of paternity uncertainty by exerting sexual control over women's sexuality and developing an inclination toward sexual jealousy (Daly & Wilson, 1998).

Following these evolutionary pressures, evolutionary psychologists have predicted differences in the arousal of men's and women's jealous reactions such that men are believed to be most threatened by their mate's sexual infidelity, and women are believed to be most threatened by emotional infidelity (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992). With respect to fitness-enhancing strategies, the potential risk to men of females' infidelity is the loss of paternity confidence; thus, a man may unknowingly invest resources in offspring that do not bear his genetic material. Females, on the other hand, certain that their offspring beget their genes, presumably are relatively less concerned with their mate's sexual infidelity; the greater threat for women is the unavailability of their mates' time and resources, a result of emotional infidelity, making it more difficult to raise offspring to the age of sexual maturity.

In an attempt to test this hypothesis Buss et al. (1992) asked men and women to indicate which of two types of infidelity--sexual or emotional--would upset them more. They reported that women more often chose emotional infidelity as more upsetting than did men, while men chose sexual infidelity as more upsetting more often than women. Buss et al. drew similar conclusions using physiological responses as dependent measures; men demonstrated a greater heart rate and electrodermal activity in response to sexual infidelity, and women's electrodermal activity was accelerated in response to emotional infidelity. Harris and Christenfeld (1996) have argued, however, that a closer examination of this gender effect indicates that it has been largely driven by women's strong aversion to emotional infidelity; men have been close to equally split about which of the two types of infidelity would bother them more. While the evolutionary explanation appears to succeed in explaining women's elicitation of jealousy, it falls short in accounting for men's similar reactions to sexual and emotional infidelity (Harris & Christenfeld, 1996).

Wiederman and Allgeier (1993) explained the ambiguous and the sometimes conflicting results of research concerning sexual jealousy to be the result of the interaction between evolutionary dispositions and the influence of culture on shaping the cues and responses involved in situations of infidelity. They recognized that while certain psychological mechanisms, such as a proclivity to react jealously, may have been selected for differently in the sexes due to the unique demands of their evolutionary past, they argued that such mechanisms do not operate outside of a cultural context. Rather, the psychological mechanisms function as cognitive algorithms or frames which structure, and allow for interpretation of, environmental stimuli (Wiederman & Allgeier, 1993). Without denying links to our genetic ancestors, the cognitive algorithms to which Wiederman and Allgeier referred may also be accounted for by social learning theory; in social learning theory they are called schemas, mental frameworks containing information relevant to specific situations or events which, once established, help us interpret situations in the environment (Baron & Byrne, 1997).

Following the suggestion by White (1981), DeSteno and Salovey (1996) and Harris and Christenfeld (1996) hypothesized that the relation between sex and jealousy is better explained by considering the interpretation that individuals may draw concerning the two types of infidelity. More specifically, they suggested that women were more likely than men to expect that emotional infidelity implied sexual infidelity. That is, in becoming more distressed over their partners' emotional involvement with another person, women may actually have been responding to two threats--the explicit occurrence of emotional infidelity and an inferred sexual infidelity--rather than just one form of transgression. Given DeSteno and Salovey's and Harris and Christenfeld's argument, it appears that a confounding may have existed in prior studies of gender differences with respect to the elicitation of sexual jealousy; scenarios typically used in jealousy research have not explicitly excluded the possibility of sex following emotional involvement.

In an effort to explore some implications of DeSteno and Salovey's (1996) and Harris and Christenfeld's (1996) analyses, the present study attempted to make the boundaries of described infidelity unequivocal. Three conditions of infidelity were used: one in which an imagined partner had become sexually but explicitly not emotionally involved with someone, another in which an imagined partner had become emotionally but explicitly not sexually involved, and a third in which an imagined partner had specifically become both sexually and emotionally involved. Two other variables, gender of the participants and the extent to which they reported few or several jealous tendencies, were included to generate a 3 x 2 x 2 independent groups design. It was expected that characterizing individuals according to their jealous disposition would help account for variance in participants' responses to the situations of infidelity.

In addition to the conventionally used index of emotional upset, an indicator of sexual jealousy, Smith and Ellsworth's (1985) six cognitive dimensions of emotion--pleasantness, anticipated effort, certainty, attentional activity, responsibility, and situational control--were also measured in an effort to assess men's and women's cognitive appraisal of the jealousy-evoking event. While DeSteno and Salovey (1996) and Harris and Christenfeld (1996) suggested the possibility that men and women react differently to situations of infidelity as a result of their approach or interpretation of the event, it remains to be answered why such interpretative differences occur. In assessing Smith and Ellsworth's six dimensions of emotion in an exploratory manner it was hoped that some insight would be gained as to why men and women arrive at different interpretations.

METHOD

Design

A 3 x 2 x 2 independent groups design was used to determine the joint effects of the nature of the jealousy-evoking event (sexual infidelity, emotional infidelity, or emotional and sexual infidelity), participants' sex, and their level of jealousy tendencies on individuals' degree of emotional upset and on their cognitive appraisal of the situation.

Level of jealous tendencies, a dichotomous variable, was based on the median split (median = 4.00) of de Weerth and Kalma's (1993) measure of sexual jealousy and its triggers. Participants indicated on a 7-point summative response scale, varying from 1 (Indifferent) to 7 (Angry, upset, or sad), how they would feel should their partner interact in specific situations with another individual. The situations included laughing and talking, working closely, touching often during conversation, giving a present, making love, and thinking often of an individual of the opposite sex. For this study, de Weerth and Kalma's wording of the questions was slightly modified by asking participants to imagine his/her partner interacting with someone the same sex as himself/herself in the various situations.

The three conditions of infidelity were represented by three different scenarios, each depicted within a different context; they were a business trip, a vacation, or a nightclub. Three parallel versions of each scenario were used across the three conditions of infidelity resulting in a total of nine different scenarios. An example of one scenario representing the condition of sexual infidelity follows:

   Your boyfriend/girlfriend arrives home from a week-long business trip only
   to inform you that he/she met someone that he/she found very physically
   attractive. Although they had few common interests they engaged in sexual
   intercourse throughout the week. You are sure that your partner loves you
   very much and highly values your relationship together. Your partner has
   reassured you that even if he/she did have sex with someone else his/her
   attraction to the person was purely physical.

For the remaining two conditions of infidelity for this particular scenario version, the narrative remained the same with the exception of those parts that detailed the nature of the imagined partner's involvement with the individual outside of the romantic relationship. The condition of emotional infidelity for this scenario version read as follows:

   Your boyfriend/girlfriend arrives home from a week-long business trip only
   to inform you that he/she met someone that he/she found very intriguing.
   They spent the entire week together exploring their common interests. You
   are sure that your partner loves you very much and highly values your
   relationship together. Your partner has reassured you that even if he/she
   enjoyed the company of someone else while he/she was away they did not
   engage in sexual intercourse

The last condition of infidelity--both sexual and emotional involvement--for this scenario version read as follows:

   Your boyfriend/girlfriend arrives home from a week-long business trip only
   to inform you that he/she met someone that he/she found very intriguing.
   They spent the entire week together exploring their common interests.
   Before your partner returned home they had engaged in sexual intercourse.
   You are sure that your partner loves you very much and highly values your
   relationship together.

The vacation and nightclub scenarios were consistent with the above scenario in that the infidelity transpired at a location other than the couple's home town. The booklets, varying only in the scenario that appeared on the third page, were distributed in a randomized block order separately for women and men to ensure that the nine scenarios were completed by each sex at an equal rate.

Participants

Participants were 322 undergraduate students (165 women and 156 men, 1 individual did not indicate his/her sex) attending California State University, Sacramento or one of three Los Rios community colleges. Students at California State University, Sacramento received partial credit toward fulfilling a requirement in their introductory psychology course; they voluntarily signed up for the study which was advertised as a project investigating attitudes toward romantic relationships. Participation by students at the community colleges was purely voluntary, as no credit was awarded for their taking part in the experiment. The study was similarly described to the community college students as it was advertised to the California State University students--an investigation of romantic relationship attitudes. Ages ranged from 18 to 69 (M = 23.61, SD = 7.76). Eighty-six percent of the participants reported having been in a serious romantic relationship presently or in the past.

Materials and Procedure

Participants completed a test booklet containing all of the stimulus materials. The first page of the booklet was an information sheet which consisted of three main sections. The first section included demographic questions and brief queries about the participant's current romantic relationship status and past experiences of infidelity to which individuals responded either yes or no. De Weerth and Kalma's (1993) measure of sexual jealousy and its triggers made up the second section of the information sheet. Participants who were not currently involved in a romantic relationship were asked to think of a past relationship or to try to imagine how they would feel with respect to the situations if they were involved in a romantic relationship. The last section on the information sheet measured the extent to which participants had experienced feelings of sexual jealousy in their personal relationships. Individuals responded to the statement, "I have experienced jealousy about a romantic partner in the past," using a 7-point summative response scale varying from 1 (Very infrequently) to 7 (Very frequently).

The second page of the booklet contained 12 statements designed to have the students start to think about romantic relationships as an unobtrusive preparation for the primary task that followed. Six of the 12 statements were borrowed from Wiederman and Allgeier (1993) to measure values placed on the emotional and sexual aspects of romantic relationships. Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with each of the statements using a 7-point summative response scale, varying from 1 (Very little) to 7 (Very much).

A jealousy-evoking scenario appeared on the third page. Participants were asked to imagine their partner in one of the three types of scenarios described above. Individuals who were not currently involved in a romantic relationship were asked to think of a past relationship or to try to imagine how they would feel with respect to the situation if they were involved in a romantic relationship. After reading the scenario, the students indicated the degree of emotional upset that they were likely to experience using a 7-point summative response scale varying from 1 (Very little) to 7 (Very much).

To identify participants' cognitive interpretation of the jealousy-evoking event, Smith and Ellsworth's (1985) six cognitive dimensions of emotion were then measured using their eighteen 11-point summative response scales, all of which followed the measure of emotional upset. Two of the six questions that made up the dimension of pleasantness and both of the questions that made up the attentional activity dimension were rated on bipolar scales ranging from 1 (Unpleasant, Divert attention)to 11 (Pleasant, Devote attention). The remaining questions were rated on monopolar scales ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 11 (Extremely). The wording of Smith and Ellsworth's questions was modified from past tense to a subjective assessment. For example, instead of asking, "How pleasant or unpleasant was it to be in this situation" participants were asked, "How pleasant or unpleasant would this situation be."

Respondents completed the surveys either in small mixed-gender groups of 5 to 10 people or in a mixed-gender classroom setting of 20 to 30 people. The booklets took approximately 15 min. to complete.

RESULTS

Of the 322 participants in this study, 21 individuals reported a homo- or bisexual orientation. For the sake of consistency with the assumptions of past jealousy research, these individuals' responses were not included in the overall analyses.

Preliminary analyses of variance indicated that the three story versions were comparable with respect to the dependent measures of sexual jealousy and the six cognitive dimensions of emotion, making the findings generalizible beyond a single scenario. It was also determined that participants pooled from different college campuses did not differ with respect to the dependent measures.

In preparation for the primary analysis, the continuous measure of jealousy and its triggers was dichotomized using a median split (median = 4.00). A median split was used given the nearly perfect normal distribution of the sample across the measure. Individuals below the median were characterized as having lower jealous tendencies in the context of romantic relationships, while those above the split were considered to have higher jealous tendencies.

The primary analysis, a 3 x 2 x 2 independent groups design, was used to investigate the joint effects of the nature of the jealousy-evoking event (sexual infidelity, emotional infidelity, or both sexual and emotional infidelity), participants' sex, and the level of sexual jealousy on individuals' emotional response of jealousy (degree of emotional upset) and on their cognitive appraisal of the situation using these latter seven measures as dependent variables. The multivariate analysis of variance, using the Wilks' criterion, yielded significance for only two main effects--the gender of the participant, F(7, 273) = 2.14, p [is less than] .05, and the nature of the infidelity scenario, F(14, 546) = 16.42, p [is less than] .05.

To minimize alpha inflation, significance of the univariate results was evaluated using a Bonferroni correction (.05/7 = .007). Effects whose significance fell between the corrected alpha and the conventionally used .05 level were considered trends. Table 1 contains the univariate F-ratios and the means and standard deviations for the significant multivariate effects.

Table 1. Significant Multivariate Effects of Analysis of Variance

                                     Gender

                           Men          Women

Dependent measures      M      SD     M      SD     F

Emotional upset        9.19   2.57   9.82   2.06   4.04(*)
Pleasantness           3.89   1.69   3.89   1.63   0.58
Anticipated effort     7.32   2.62   7.08   2.63   1.08
Certainty              6.36   2.24   6.30   2.22   0.01
Attentional activity   6.44   2.63   6.17   2.88   0.68
Responsibility         5.05   1.65   4.44   1.81   5.95(*)
Situational control    3.97   2.91   4.09   3.19   0.19

                          Jealousy evoking event

                          Sexual       Emotional

Dependent measures       M      SD     M      SD

Emotional upset        10.74   0.88   7.29   2.62
Pleasantness            3.49   1.45   4.80   1.69
Anticipated effort      7.35   2.82   6.86   2.23
Certainty               6.63   2.25   5.71   1.88
Attentional activity    6.11   3.16   6.62   2.29
Responsibility          4.44   1.74   5.43   1.40
Situational control     3.29   3.02   4.76   2.91

                        Jealousy evoking event

                          Sexual/
                         Emotional

Dependent measures       M      SD        F

Emotional upset        10.49   1.15   112.03(**)
Pleasantness            3.37   1.41    24.85(**)
Anticipated effort      7.40   2.76     0.67
Certainty               6.66   2.40     5.23(**)
Attentional activity    6.17   2.70     1.56
Responsibility          4.36   1.93    10.72(**)
Situational control     4.10   3.05     4.30(*)

(*) p < .05.

(**) p < .007.

Contrary to the pattern predicted by the evolutionary model, the main effect of gender indicated that women experienced more distress over all conditions of infidelity--sexual, emotional, and the combination of sexual and emotional--than did men. Women also felt less responsible for their partner's disloyalty than did men. The sexes did not differ on the remaining five cognitive dimensions of emotion.

For the main effect of the condition of infidelity, Tukey comparisons indicated that the conditions containing sexual involvement, either by itself or together with emotional involvement, proved to be more upsetting than emotional involvement by itself. Additionally, situations in which the imagined partner had become either sexually involved or both sexually and emotionally involved with someone were found to (a) be less pleasant, (b) result in more certainty, and (c) generate lower feelings of responsibility than the situation in which the imagined partner had become only emotionally involved with someone outside of the romantic relationship. For the situational control scale, Tukey comparisons showed that sexual infidelity was recognized as being an event beyond the individual's control more than emotional infidelity: the combination of sexual and emotional infidelity, however, did not differ in situational control from either of the two types of infidelity by themselves.

DISCUSSION

Cognitive appraisals of infidelity appear to be an important element in gaining insight into the elicitation of sexual jealousy. In particular, for both of the significant effects in this study, elevated levels of jealousy (as measured by emotional upset) were accompanied by the participants feeling less responsible for their partner's disloyalty. One way to understand the relationship of responsibility to the experience of emotional upset is that, to the extent that an individual cannot claim a role in a situation, it is likely that he or she will feel insecure or threatened by the events of that situation, thus in part leading to feelings of upset.

With respect to the conditions of infidelity, individuals accepted more responsibility for their partner's infidelity when it was emotional in nature, perhaps demonstrating a belief that their own emotional unavailability led their partner to seek comfort elsewhere. In recognizing a personal role in their partner's actions, emotional involvement by itself may be less upsetting. When a sexual component is added to the dynamics of the infidelity, however, individuals are less willing to take responsibility for their partner's actions. It appears that in violating the sexual exclusivity of the romantic relationship, unfaithful partners force their mates to relinquish any accountability that they might otherwise have felt in the situation.

It should be noted that, in retrospect, the conditions of infidelity may not have been as clear as was intended. Emotional infidelity was assumed to be inferred from the partner spending time and exploring common interests with the third party. It is possible that this assumption was faulty, resulting in a weaker manipulation than was meant. The two conditions containing sexual infidelity also differed in two respects other than was intended by the variable manipulation. The first manner in which they were not consistent was the degree or extent to which the partner had engaged in sexual intercourse with the third party. The condition containing exclusive sexual infidelity suggested that there were repeated engagements in sexual intercourse. The condition containing both sexual and emotional infidelity alludes to what may be interpreted as a single act of intercourse. Second, the sexual infidelity only condition indicated an element of physical attraction, while that containing both sexual and emotional infidelity did not. These methodological inconsistencies, fortunately, did not cause individuals to react differently to the conditions, as there were no significant differences between the two on any of the dependent measures.

Although the weaker of the two effects, the sex difference in this study is especially interesting in that it is not consistent with the evolutionary perspective, the predominant framework from which sexual jealousy has been studied. The tendency of women in the present study to experience more emotional upset over all of the conditions of infidelity and their feelings of less responsibility for their partner's actions may be related to the cultural assumptions that men and women make in romantic relationships. White (1981) has suggested that men and women attribute different motives to the opposite sex for their disloyalty in romantic relationships. Men ascribe women's desire for extramarital involvement as a desire for greater commitment, whereas women more often ascribe a desire for sexual variety as the motive for their partner's involvement with other women. If women are attributing their male partner's actions to the cultural notion that "boys will be boys," the onus is placed on their partner leaving them to experience more emotional upset. The same, however, cannot be said for men. Rather, their negligence in providing the emotional intimacy that their female partners are presumably seeking (White, 1981) compels them to accept some responsibility for the infidelity which may, in turn, be associated with their feeling less upset. This explanation is corroborated by the findings of Berscheid (1983) that jealousy requires an attribution of responsibility to the partner or rival.

While such an explanation at first may seem counter to findings in gender role research that indicate women more often assume responsibility for the success of relationships, it is not necessarily so. Responsibility for the success of a relationship is not synonymous with responsibility for the infidelity of a romantic partner. According to Shettel-Neuber, Bryson, and Young (1978), the behavioral concomitants of jealousy vary between men and women in that men were more likely than women to be angry at themselves, to get drunk or high, and to Verbally threaten their interlopers. Women were found to be more likely to cry when alone, to make themselves more attractive to their partners, and to make their partners think that they did not care. It seems that men's behavior appears to be aimed more at maintaining self-esteem, whereas women's behavior seems to be more oriented toward maintaining the relationship (Bryson, 1976, 1977 as cited in White & Mullen, 1989). Behavioral responses to an infidelity situation should be viewed as independent of the cognitive appraisal resulting in feelings of jealousy. It is thus possible for a woman to blame her partner or rival more than herself, and at the same time to take measures to preserve the relationship.

Nevertheless, it is important to exercise caution in relying too heavily on the dimension of responsibility for an explanation of the differences that appeared in men's and women's elicitation of jealousy. Future research should investigate the dimension of responsibility more directly by manipulating it across conditions so that blame is placed explicitly on either the participant or on the offending partner. Additionally, while many have attested to the integrity of jealousy research using vignettes as stimulus materials, the possibility exists that such scenarios illicit prototypical experiences of jealousy rather than that which is intended by the vignette (Sharpsteen, 1991). A jealousy prototype helps people make sense of jealousy situations. Sharpsteen identified the risk that when given only a brief description of an infidelity situation, participants may need to call on their jealousy prototypes in order to respond to researcher questions. To the extent that men and women maintain different ideas about the typical jealousy experience, the difference in their appraisal of the situation may be more a reflection of their prototype than of the stimulus materials in the study. As romantic relationships are far more complex than any short scenario or vignette can relay, it is important to explore further issues of infidelity, responsibility, and jealousy in the real life relationships in which they occur.

In reducing ambiguity in the conditions of infidelity this study lends support to DeSteno and Salovey's (1996) and Harris and Christenfeld's (1996) challenge to the evolutionary perspective on the elicitation of sexual jealousy; men's and women's unique interpretations are more likely responsible for any differences that may arise in their experience of sexual jealousy. There appears to be no obvious explanation in our ancestral past that would drive one sex to feel more or less responsible for his/her mate's infidelity. It is more likely that the key to understanding men and women within the context of romantic relationships lies in the consideration of our culture's ready-made explanations for their partners' attractions.

REFERENCES

Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (1997). Social psychology (8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christenson, J. H. Harvey, T. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. Peplau, & P. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 110-168). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Buss, D. M. (1995a). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1-30.

Buss, D. M. (1995b). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50, 164-168.

Buss, D. M. (1996). The evolutionary psychology of human social strategies. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 3-38). New York: Guilford Press.

Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 982-1026). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251-255.

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1998). The evolutionary social psychology of family violence. In C. Crawford & D. L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 431-456). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy?: Questioning the "fitness" of the model. Psychological Science, 7, 367-372.

DeWeerth, C., & Kalma, A. P. (1993). Female aggression as a response to sexual jealousy: A sex role reversal? Aggressive Behavior, 19, 265-279.

Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1996). Gender, jealousy, and reason. Psychological Science, 7, 364-366.

Kenrick, D. T., Trost, M. R., & Sheets, V. L. (1996). Power, harassment, and trophy mates: The feminist advantages of an evolutionary perspective. In D. M. Buss & N. M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, power, and conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 29-53). New York: Oxford University Press.

Sharpsteen, D. J. (1991). The organization of jealousy knowledge: Romantic jealousy as a blended emotion. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 31-48). New York: Guilford Press.

Shettel-Neuber, J., Bryson, J., & Young, L. (1978). Physical attractiveness of the "other person" and jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 612-615.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813-838.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19-136). New York: Oxford University Press.

Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man:1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.

White, G. L. (1981). Jealousy and partner's perceived motives for attraction to a rival. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 24-30.

White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. New York: Guilford Press.

Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1993). Gender differences in sexual jealousy: Adaptionist or social learning explanation?. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 115-140.

Manuscript accepted November 22, 1999

Dawn K. Nannini and Lawrence S. Meyers California State University, Sacramento

This paper is based on a psychology Masters thesis and was presented as a 15 min. paper at the joint convention of the Western Psychological Association and the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association in Albuquerque, NM (April, 1998). Special thanks to Pamela Mallory-Johnson and Christina Montoya for their assistance in conducting this study.

Address correspondence to Dawn Nannini who is now at the Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523: e-mail: [e-mail].